The Philosopher's Fallacy and How to Avoid It

See title

                           The Philosopher’s Fallacy and How to Avoid It

 

 

                                             Author’s Introduction

            I have always been a thinking type person. Even in my early teens, delivering newspapers early every morning, I found myself speculating about "the biggest idea in the world."

            In college, I majored in Physics but took enough Philosophy to get a minor. I was not pursuing Philosophy for an extra credential. I did it for the joy of it, and the minor degree was an unexpected, happy result. This is not to say I was extraordinarily talented in the field. I remember my professor yelling at me: "How do you know that you cannot know, Seward? You must have read an awful lot of books." I thought we could not know anything with certainty. I was young and stupid.

            But even after college, I kept thinking about all the things that were said in class, all the ideas I read, and my own private queries about the meaning of existence. Over the years, I dumped a lot of analytical garbage and began seeing the whole thinking endeavor from a great height. It was very disillusioning. Every time you tried to assert something positively, there seemed to be numerous contradictions lurking in the background. It was debilitating and almost turned me into a nihilist.

            But I finally began to see a way out.

            I found a way to handle the contradictions. I could not eliminate them, but I could manage them. And in the end, I think this method helps one to approach Truth. The Philosopher's Fallacy and How to Avoid It may be beneficial to thinkers who do not wish to read in infinite volume composed of "buts," "under this condition," "with this exception," and other qualifiers.

 

 

 

                                       The Contradictions of Philosophy

            In every philosophy class I took in college, the first reading was from Plato. This is no surprise, as Plato was the first great writer of Philosophy in the West. I was enthralled by the hero figure, Socrates, his charisma and insight. I found myself extolling the virtues of rationalism and truth-seeking to all who would hear and even to a few who were put off by it. But it was only a short time until I noticed that as much as I wished to be perfectly logical, I usually failed. I also noticed I was judging others by my high standards; rational idealism was putting me at odds with myself and my fellow human beings, who were, after all, quite human.

             Then, I discovered Schopenhauer. Ah, retire into a quiet life of art contemplation and inner peace. Screw the world. It made sense to me because I liked music and the inner life. However, it was not long afterward that I discovered that withdrawal results in boredom and deterioration. And besides, the world would not function if everyone retired from life.

            Then there was Marx. We must right all the social injustices and inequities. The only problem was that every communist country out there was ruled by an iron-fisted dictator, and the people were treated like dirt. There is always a hierarchy when it comes to our kind.

            Then I got into Nietzsche. Being a superman and inventing your own rules in life appealed to my young imagination. But the freedom of inventing myself without constraints made me feel like I was treading water in a sea of possibilities without an island to swim to or a rudder to steer by. And then there is the apparent fact one can only partially step out of the values and morals of the society that raised them in the first place. Superman was a fictitious comic book hero.

           I quickly discovered that positivists sacrifice subjective understanding for objective precision, and pragmatists sacrifice objective truth to gain personal advantage.

           Everywhere I looked, the different philosophies had negations within themselves and between each other. Yet the founders of these systems were all extremely intelligent people. Why all the contradictions? What was going on here?

 

 

 

                                        The Philosopher’s Fallacy

          The philosopher’s fallacy is our tendency to attach significance to something. This favoring of one or a handful of values results in a distortion because it is all in our heads. Nature herself is neutral: a kind of Rorschach test on which we project our skewed concepts.  We see evidence for whatever we believe and always assume God or Nature is thinking just like us. In reality, in Nature’s bosom, there is nothing special going on. It consists of physical processes that interact in complex ways but do not favor any particular result other than what is. There is no agenda. Even the biological imperative of survival is nothing special. It is simply how organisms sustain themselves, as natural and mater-of-fact an occurrence as gravity making things fall and electricity charging batteries.

           But is not man the measure of all things? Does the mind not emphasize certain things, and is not the mind part of Nature?

           We all indeed have a rich inner life, but it is a very fuzzy place. The different standards of art, morality, and convention are constantly changing, and individuals have yet to agree on what these should be. If our minds had any objective reality beyond a few very broad generalities, there would be more consensus.

           But what about the possibility of the sacred? Is there a God out there imbuing us with spiritual values?

           The history of science is a solid movement from supernatural explanations to profane understandings. As science matures in its comprehension of everything, it becomes less and less apparent that we need the divine to explain our existence. The existence of God poses far more questions than profane science. After all, who created God? How does she create? How does she move through the world's workings, and by what means does she manifest herself?

           But what about Near-Death Experiences? Do not those imply a spiritual realm?

           NDEs vary significantly between individuals and cultures, and there is not one single commonality they all have. No commonality implies the nonexistence of the phenomena. Also, all studies performed to confirm out-of-body experiences have failed.

           What about "healthy" philosophies such as Pragmatism and Positive Psychology? Is this emphasis on happiness not preferable even though it is a distortion? The simple fact is that you cannot attach positive significance to satisfaction without experiencing some suffering to contrast it with. The two are interdependent. And just the idealization of the happy state causes strife and contradiction. "I want to be happy" becomes "I am now unhappy."         

           Certain goals and perspectives may well be healthy. But the bottom line is that our ideals, as well as God and happiness, are empty mirages we keep stumbling toward in the desert of life. We live in an indifferent universe, and the subjective order our minds can impose on it cannot be agreed upon.

 

 

 

                                      Why We Commit the Fallacy

           Philosophies always have a core of one to four main ideas. When we take up a philosophical doctrine, we attach significance to these ideas and downplay everything else. We do this because we are simpletons and because we have a natural need for some orientation in life. Many readers may object to the assertion they are simple, but an honest appraisal makes this apparent. We can only think of one thing at a time, and ninety-nine percent of us do not have the sophistication, inclination, or patience to tease the facts out of existence. Finally, it can be argued that Nature wants us to be simple. Most sensitive geniuses have miserable lives.

        

 

 

                                      How to Manage Contradiction

         Since humans are so simple, it is only fitting to take a simple approach to eliminating contradiction, or at least removing a certain degree of it. Each position affirmed in a philosophical approach has an opposite that, if adequately entertained, is seen to have some validity. By carefully dwelling on the opposing proposition and using your imagination to see its place in the scheme of things, one can integrate the proposition and its negation and arrive at a super truth that will no doubt have its own set of problems but will be a much more comprehensive system than the original position.  Let us consider a few examples.

        The Buddhist ideal of peace and Nirvana resembles Schopenhauer's philosophy. Live a quiet, retiring life and nurture a sense of inner freedom. Buddhists naturally try their best to do this but quickly run into problems. Their meditations are disturbed by "wandering mind," and they experience breakthroughs to calmer states but cannot sustain them. Many chalk this up to ignorance and bad karma. But could it be that they cannot attain perfect realization because they neglect their worldly self, which is impossible to eliminate? Do we not need a worldly self? We are born into and live in the world. Striving to achieve some end is necessary for survival and only natural. Even struggling to attain Nirvana can be seen as a very selfish endeavor. So, the genuinely enlightened bodhisattva manages these opposing views by alternating between them: spending time supporting herself with an exciting job while meditating in the evening to "let go of all the crap" she accumulated during the day; when she is done meditating, she feels refreshed and ready to take on some work again the next day.

        Let us consider another example: politics. Some of you out there will not agree with my views, so entrenched are we in our values. However, there is a way to resolve the conflict between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives have a small corner on the truth regarding tradition. Successful societies have a particular working order in them that is responsible for their success, and there is a traditional hierarchy to them as well, which may not be fair but is found everywhere in higher-order animals. Inequality is perfectly natural. So, when running the country, it is necessary to attach some significance to this order: both the values and the hierarchy. Liberal's truth niche lies in their love and acceptance toward all members of the tribe, which can brush over some of those inequities. Conservatism and liberalism can be integrated by applying a traditional orientation for precious order at the national level while having individuals reach out and love one another on the local level. We need both order and love. Both are so cohesive and healthy. But the government cannot legislate love nor pursue equality to its logical conclusion. And the individual cannot keep things organized if she insists on erasing order and hierarchy. Fortunately, order and love need not be contradictory. They can complement each other when applied to their proper spheres.

       Let us take one more example. How about rationalism? The great thing about exercising reason is it helps you manage your life: both the outside and the inside. The imposed order is calming and practical. The downside of conforming to logic, though, is that it puts restraints on freedom and expression. So maybe every other night, you can crack open a beer and visit with the neighbor. Just visit. Do not try to get anything out of it. Or you can take your wife or girlfriend out to dinner to eat some hedonistic garbage that is not good for you, and the two of you enjoy your time together. Or play with some kids without telling them what to do. Or take your dog for a walk. Just let go of thinking about what you should do and be yourself. Your respite from the weight of thinking will help you commit to tomorrow's agenda enthusiastically while the arduous work you end up doing will make your upcoming break from it much more enjoyable.

        By balancing and integrating opposites, you get the best of both worlds. You will still experience complications and conflict, but it will be manageable. You will not be getting in your own way.

 

 

 

                                             One Final Observation

     Compromise may be one of the most important ideas ever conceived in the world. You see it everywhere: Greek moderation, the middle way of Buddhism, the Yin and Yang principle of Taoism, and "balance" in psychology. One may be reluctant to give something up to attain this balance, but giving to receive is how the universe works. The wise person learns to give and thereby brings herself into harmony with existence and herself.

Author's Note

What do you think?